User talk:MolarMassMaeve

Dulaglutide compares potency with a compound that has no published head-to-head study against it. The comparison may well be right, but assembling it from two separate trials is the case Project:No original research covers. Could the sentence be attributed to a review that makes the comparison, or removed? — DulaglutideDug (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right. There is no head-to-head study and I have removed the comparison. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Project:Manual of style the international non-proprietary name leads and the trade name follows in parentheses at first mention. Tirzepatide has it the other way round in the lead and the right way round in the body. Not important in itself, but the articles are read side by side. — LurkerLevi (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. The lead now leads with the international name and the trade name follows it. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Loss on drying without an edit summary. I have restored it. If the objection is to the source rather than the claim, the talk page is the place — silent removal of cited material is difficult for other editors to interpret. — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That was careless of me. My objection was to the source, and I should have said so on the talk page rather than deleting. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Dual incretin agonist compares potency with a compound that has no published head-to-head study against it. The comparison may well be right, but assembling it from two separate trials is the case Project:No original research covers. Could the sentence be attributed to a review that makes the comparison, or removed? — PurityClaimPia (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have attributed it to the review that makes the comparison, and noted that the review is doing the comparing rather than a trial. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Liraglutide. Since you wrote most of the article's current text you may have a view on whether the proposed title is the one a reader would search for. — A1c_Alder (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have commented. My view is that the current title is what a reader searches for, and the proposed one is what a registrar would write. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The molar mass in the Liraglutide infobox does not say which form it refers to. Free base and salt differ by enough that a reader reconstituting from the figure would be several per cent out. Do you know which the source gives? — TimelineTiernan (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It is the free-base figure. I have labelled it, and added the salt mass underneath since that is what a purchaser actually weighs. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Converting the substitution lists in GLP-1 receptor agonist and Dulaglutide into tables was the right call — the analogues now line up row for row and the differences are visible at a glance, which three paragraphs of prose were never going to achieve. — AxisLabelAgda (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The tables made two errors visible that the prose had been hiding for a year. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)